February 13, 2007

So said Bill O'Reilly on his TV show last night, referring to the debacle over the two lefty bloggers the Edwards campaign hired, fired, and unfired. (One of the bloggers, Amanda Marcotte, has now resigned.)

O'Reilly put the focus on Edwards: he lacks the judgment to be President, he would allow "Christian-haters" to serve in his administration, etc. There were two guests on the show, one represented Democrats (and agreed that Edwards showed poor judgment) and the other was Michelle Malkin. Malkin was given one opportunity to speak and impressively nailed her position. Man, that was crisp! (Watch the video at the first link. It's a nice lesson in how to do TV.)

I particularly liked the way Malkin helped TV viewers understand the difficult relationship Democratic candidates have with the left blogosphere. The story must look quite weird to people who don't spend time reading blogs. For them, it might seem that Edwards made an odd mistake, followed by some strange indecision. The big picture is that the Democratic candidates have to interact with and please or at least appease the raging force that is the left blogosphere. No one has yet shown that they know how to do that well.

But some folks are learning faster than others. Look at this, from Kos, noting that a top adviser to an Edwards opponent told Slate's John Dickerson: "Apparently they're more afraid of the bloggers than they are the Catholics." Kos is desperate to find out which Democrat -- Dickerson confirms that it was a Democrat -- took that shot at the lefty bloggers:

[I]t's telling that whoever offered that blind quote to Slate was clearly more afraid of the bloggers than the Catholics that his or her campaign would supposedly win over by bashing Edwards....

[I]t's hypocritical to attack the Edwards campaign for "being afraid of bloggers" when this person was obviously too afraid of bloggers to put his or her name on the quote.

Ooh, everyone's afraid of the bloggers. I mean, the Democratic candidates are afraid of the lefty bloggers. I don't think the Republican candidates are afraid of the righty bloggers. Think that's a problem?

You can really tell that Kos wants the candidates to be afraid of him. It's an interesting dynamic. There's a real paradox to this lefty blogger power. They are so powerful that they are able to hurt the Democratic candidates in all sorts of strange new ways. Meanwhile, the non-lefty bloggers will amuse themselves watching and describing it all.

Minor nitpick: the problem for Democrats isn't exactly that no Democratic candidates have shown that they know how to "interact with and please or at least appease the raging force that is the left blogosphere," their problem is figuring out how to do so while not becoming utterly unpalatable to actual voters, as both Howard Dean and Ned Lamont have discovered to their cost.

Alcibiades - I'd love for us to be able to claim credit, but while we sounded the alarm, it becomes apparent in Jan Crawford Greenburg's book that the Miers nomination didn't so much fail as it disintegrated on contact with reality. She was never a viable nominee, and she would have been slaughtered in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Now, whether the White House would actually have scrubbed the nomination absent the outcry is something we'll never know.

The real significance off the Miers nomination is that it showed who in the GOP was a mindless Bush follower and who was willing to stand up to him for what they believed. Reputations were permanently broken that week, from the President of the United States on down.

Saying the Edwards campaign is dead 1.5+ years from the election is nonsense. In 2 weeks, it'll be Marcotte who for most voters. In 12 months? Something else that determines the course of the candidacy will have happened.

ahh, we'll see much more of this: the unregulated id of the internet destabilising the bland ego that must prevail in the mainstream. ideally, it will work to break down the lacquered tedium of political campaigning in america. more likely, just a lot more people will get fired...

first you start with a setup piece by Lupha Bill Oreally - certainly a stranger to the truth - and as is Faux Noise's way, they bring on a "fair and balanced panel" consisting of a left leaning putz and a screamer from hell ...was Anthrax Annie busy or did Michelle just need some face time...and they comment on something (the blogosphere) in which they participate but only perversely..then it gets all packaged up into the soundbite byte collection "I think this is the end of (the) Edward's campaign".

This is just so much goo and it is silly on source. MM is weird on face value and I doubt she has much credibility past the koolaide types who watch Faux Noise....

Tell me Anna, is Faux Noise like Drudge - you know it isn't true or accurate, its just easy?

I am guessing the democratic candidates have a bit more to fear from the left blogosphere than republicans do from the right. As Simon points out both Howard Dean and Ned Lamont will be the object lessons the democratic candidates will take to heart. The Republican candidates have not, as yet, had similar experiences in an electoral context.

I think the interesting thing is going to be what happens between now and the primary season next year. It appears that the states including california are moving their primaries up. Its entirely likely the Dems will have a candidate by March or April; if so, the left blogosphere's choices are to go along or support a third party run thus diminishing the Dems effort.

Look for the left blogosphere to have its major effect prior to the primary season; and after that, they become the sister soljah moment for the Dems candidate.

the Democratic candidates are afraid of the lefty bloggers. I don't think the Republican candidates are afraid of the righty bloggers. Think that's a problem?

Sane Dems are indeed wary of the moonbats like Marcotte et al. The hard left has become fascist. I lurk on center-left & moderate blogs, like Terry Moran and Althouse, and its always the Left telling the bloggers what they should and shouldn't write about.

Just this week, Doyle was raking Ann for being too negative about Dems. Tell me Ann, has a right-wing blogger or conservative commentator ever tried to browbeat or silence you for criticizing the Right?

The Lefties here burn Ann as a heretic at least once a month. If I were a Dem candidate, I'd be wary too. These people are unhinged.

The only reason the Democrats are flustered by the left-wing bloggers is that nothing is happening yet. The only people that care at the moment are partisan obsessives.

So Edwards reaches out, hoping to get some early buzz. A year from now, he'll need people on the ground -- in Iowa and New Hampshire. Until the virtual hordes can show up in person, their influence is transitory.

Eighteen months from now, blog support will be no more than a flea on the tail of each party's saturation campaign.

Right.... The right-wing blogosphere and the right-wing base aren't on the minds of the GOP candidates at all....

Bullfeathers!

Romney, McCain, and Giuliani are all trying to run away from their earlier record on things like abortion, civil unions, anti-discrimination laws, and other social issues.

McCain is embracing Jerry Falwell and is actually flipflopping more than Kerry was reported to have done so. Romney has continued to contradict his campaign promises and pledges from his failed '94 Senate bid. Giuliani, a former "pro-choice" candidate, is now saying that he is in favor of strict constructionist judges-sounds flip-floppish to my ears.

Yeah-these guys are so brave and bold in maintaining their principles without concern of attack from the right-wing blogosphere. Puhlease.

If I were a Dem candidate, I'd be wary too. These people are unhinged.

Unhinged? Do you ever stop by LGF, FreeRepublic, or Redstate? Even stating a leftwing view over at Redstate will get you banned quicker than anything.

And Malkin herself. She complains because of ant-Catholic bias, but spews anti-Islam bias all the time, wrote a book defending the internment of the Japanese and is a raging racist. Then you've got Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit telling us how if we don't fight the Islamists well enough now, well in a few years, genocide might be necessary.

I do think that it is Hillary whose campaign is figuring this out, if for no other reason than that she is the only really serious mature candidate on the Democratic side. She is not just looking at the nomination, but also the election.

Last night I was watching some debate on Fox, and noticing that the guys representing the left haven't learned to shave yet. Yet, this one guy with a couple of days growth was opining about how Iraq was lost, etc., with his facts obviously gleened from Green Zone reporting. And I was thinking that this is what the left is offering us - Gen Y and Gen Z pundity and solutions.

Yes, Obama has a lot of charsisma. But what else? What substance? Besides appearing significantly to the left of Hillary, there is little else. Right now, he is the candidate of those younger generations. But he evidences a lack of seriousness that really only will appeal to them.

Hillary is the one major Democratic candidate who has a serious chance at winning, and part of it is in realizing that totally caving to the wackos in the left blogosphere would cause the ultimate Democratic candidate to be creamed by whoever the Republicans nominate - the big three are just as serious and mature as she.

All this aside, I don't see how Edward's candidacy could survive any regular showing of that video of him fluffing his hair for several painful minutes like some self-absorbed nitwit. A one-minute excerpt of that video run as an ad with the voiceover "Do you really believe this man is ready to be President?" might be one of the most damning political ads since the anti-Goldwater flower girl/nuclear explosion ad of the early 60s. Edwards doesn't have the substance to be an effective President, and the video of him playing with his hair like some high school pretty boy makes that abundantly clear.

For those of you who don't know the video, try http://slate.msn.com/id/2108216/slideshow/2108085/entry/2108087/speed/100

Righty bloggers bring swiftboating of the opponent, and the echo chamber of the talking points (usually wrong.)

Lefty bloggers like Democrats are subject to being smeared in the traditional media that caters to known racists and idiots like Malkin, Donoghue, Limbaugh, Hannity, most of Fox.

Basically as you know and understand Ann, being correct is hard work, it requires research, it requires listening to other points of view, and it requires paying attention. It's much easier to go along with the crowd, be lazy, pay attention to reality shows, and let your big daddy torture the bad guys in your name, and ignore the details.

So yeah, lefty bloggers play a more active role and are vulnerable to the crap you spread about "leftists", while righty bloggers are just yet another smear merchant.

I have a feeling that we're going to be fighting this meme for some time to come, but I suppose that on the plus side, it at least presents a golden opportunity to explain to the left the difference between normative views on abortion and descriptive views about what the Constitution says about it. That might be quite healthy.

Do you ever stop by LGF, FreeRepublic, or Redstate? Even stating a leftwing view over at Redstate will get you banned quicker than anything.

Not my experience. I've even gone a few rounds with freepers over things like harriet miers, border security, etc. BTW, FreeRepublic is not a blog, its a private discussion board where concservatives can debate without all the vitrol from lefty trolls. I see trolls get zotted, but only because they start the convo off with things like hope you moronic brownshirts all die.

And I read LGF regularly. I don't see any racism from Charles [who's actually not a conservative]. I don't read the comments, as most are of the "me too" variety and a waste of my time. But I value LGF for speaking truth about those that have perverted Islam, info that the MSM refuses to show you [like CNN covering up Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers. Bets that you still trust them as an information broker].

I am getting tired of seeing Lefties trot out false assertions and distortions about Malkin, LGF, etc. Its dishonest of you. It would be like Freepers posting to every blog that Glenn Greenwald likes to play with little boys, and his readers are titilated by hidden molestation messages.

it was only yesterday that someone told Ann that since a story was not being discussed on DailyKos or Atrios, she should not be posting about it. Oh the horror!

The point was that the Left even makes the attempt - an appeal to conformity to coerce speech. They do this in RL too. If you don't parrot party-line talking points, they ostricize you from family/work/society.

You suggest that Malkin has an anti-Islamic bias. I would suggest that you are delusional if you don't too right now. Yes, she goes overboard, but it wasn't the Buddists who seized our embassy in Iran, blew up our Marine's barraks in Beruit, attacked other embassies of ours around the world, tried to sink one of our warships, and tried, then succeeded in taking down the WTC towers. Nor, were it the Catholics, or even the Communists. Militant Islam has been attacking us for nearing thirty years now, with increasing frequency, and only since 9/11 have we started hitting back (and that is obviously half hearted).

Let me also suggest that her views on both Islam and the Japanese are filtered through her 2nd generation Fillipino background. She has relatives at risk of Islamic terrorism back in the Phillipines and, likely, some who were brutalized by their Japanese occupiers.

Yes, she is over the top a lot of the time, which is why I don't read her stuff very often. But she tones it down a bit on TV, and will watch her there. And when a scandal is breaking on the right side of the blogosphere, like the Duke LAX prosecution or RatherGate, she is often one of the best resources around.

I like how you throw in "SwiftBoating", assumming that everyone here will buy into your implication that it was the smearing of an honorable candidate. But of course, neither Kerry nor his campaign ever rebutted most of their claims with any substance, nor have we yet seen Kerry's military records, despite repeated promises to do so. Hmm.

So, you have a hundred or so of Kerry's fellow Swift Boaters question his accomplishments and his patriotism, esp. with his later actions, and you have Kerry and a small number of others from there on the other side. On Kerry's side you have his fanciful autobiographical details, and on theirs, hard facts.

And, so the reality based community on the left starts the meme that Kerry was unfairly maligned by the right through lies, etc. and appropriate the term "swiftboating" to apply to this, and never, ever, reply on the merits.

And that is why I find it so hilarious that a blogger using the name "Reality Check" can be complaining about "swiftboating".

Of course I do I wouldn't make such a serious charge if I didn't. I'll even lift the direct quote for you (there is more back and forth at the link). I have linked this several times and I know some of you will go on to parse it and say "oh, he's really not advocating genocide". And to be fair, he does blame the victim. When we do have to kill all the Arabs, it will be their fault, not ours. They shouldn't be so damned uncivilized.

"Civilized societies have found it harder, though, to beat the barbarians without killing all, or nearly all, of them. Were it really to become all-out war of the sort that Osama and his ilk want, the likely result would be genocide -- unavoidable, and provoked, perhaps, but genocide nonetheless, akin to what Rome did to Carthage, or to what Americans did to American Indians."

Let me also suggest that her [Malkin's] views on both Islam and the Japanese are filtered through her 2nd generation Fillipino background. She has relatives at risk of Islamic terrorism back in the Phillipines and, likely, some who were brutalized by their Japanese occupiers.

So if you are cheated by a Jew and robbed by a black man it is okay to be anti-semitic and a racist? Good to know

Freder: Freder Frederson said..."If I were a Dem candidate, I'd be wary too. These people are unhinged. Unhinged? Do you ever stop by LGF, FreeRepublic, or Redstate? Even stating a leftwing view over at Redstate will get you banned quicker than anything. And Malkin herself. She complains because of ant-Catholic bias, but spews..."

Ant-Catholic bias?

"Have you ever heard of insect politics? Neither have I. Insects... don't have politics. They're very... brutal. No compassion, no compromise. We can't trust the insect. I'd like to become the first... insect politician. Y'see, I'd like to, but... I'm afraid, uh... I'm saying... I'm saying I - I'm an insect who dreamt he was a man and loved it. But now the dream is over... and the insect is awake."

Fen said..."The Right would never try to tell Ann what she can write about."

I was about to type "that's right; we might disagree with what she writes and criticize it, but that's par for the course." However -- Depends how you define "the right," doesn't it. Remember the libertarian spat in december?

Who is this Fen person? He seems familiar. Is he the Fenrisulven of the ancient times who slew the great Troll Lord in battle? Is he a wolf? Is he done with fetching congressional coffee and banging his head against the wall? Did he ever give Ann Althouse a ride from the airport and treat her to lunch? Is he a he?

The story is that a "John Edwards Hates Catholics" seed-meme has been planted, and Hillary and Obama, and anybody else who comes along, can water it a little bit. You don't need a lot to start a whispering campaign, and Marcotte's writings are probably enough to trigger it. Remember what that kind of whispering campaign did to the McCain candidacy?

The story made the papers because Friends of Hillary realized it potentially helps Hillary a lot with a block of voters not particularly likely to vote for her, and it made for tittilating copy.

You don't seriously think the story made the NY Times and Wash Post because those papers are on board with the Jeff Goldstein Agenda, do you?

It's not my job to perform google searches for you on every single post.

You can find the information for yourself. Google is a good place to start. Instead of covering your eyes and ears and ignoring any information you do not like, you can try to read all those sites you hate, including newspapers, including media watchdog organizations like FAIR, or E&P, or Media Matters, and read with a critical eye.

But it's pointless when someone says, "I visit here, and they never banned ME so they must be okay."

One of the fallacies, left and right, is assuming everyone is like yourself.

My theory is that Edwards was toast anyway. He has one tune: "two Americas", and lives happily in his new 30,000 sq. foot house on 100 acres across the street from the other America living in a trailor park. The hypocracy is too much, even for many Democrats.

And, of course, he is imminently attackable on how he got all that money. All it would take to nail him good there is to interview a couple of docs who either closed up shop or quit delivering babies because of his type of law suits, and then a couple of women who had to drive 100 miles to get their babies delivered.

So, why not wait until later to knock him off? My guess is money. What Edwards has is the inside track to the contingency fee tort attorneys and their fat wallets (after all, he is one of them). And they provide a lot of funding for Democratic causes and candidates.

So, while it is good to get along with the liberal wacko side of the blogosphere, it is also important for Democratic candidates to be able to generate huge amounts of campaign cash. So, Edwards wasn't threatening Hillary for the nomination, just standing in her way to get into those wallets.

True, it was the Orthodox Christians (not the Catholics) in Bosnia who attacked the Muslims there. And in Ireland the sectarian violence (and that is intra-Christian) only lasted (off and on) for 700 years, and is still now only reached an uneasy peace.

Heck, you don't even have to step outside of our own country to find examples of religiously motivated terrorism. The vast majority of our home grown terrorists all claim a Christian heritage and in the not too distant past held the reigns of power in a good chunk of the country. There were nearly 6000 documented lynchings in this country between 1880 and 1967, the vast majority carried out by "good" Christians. As Ann criticizes Germany (not that she actually criticized Germany) for letting RAF killers go after 24 years in prison, we are just getting around to prosecuting some of these murderers forty and fifty years after the fact.

I think that Al Maviva is correct here. If you want to see what the Clinton campaign is behind, just look at those two papers, esp. the NYT.

This shall be quite interesting in the upcoming presidential campaign. The last presidential election was bad enough, but Kerry wasn't really their candidate, not like Hillary is. And yet, both papers, and esp. the NYT, could reliably be depended upon to run almost any story that hurt Bush, but to suppress any that hurt Kerry. Notably, WaPo wasn't quite as reliable as the NYT, and I expect this to be even more obvious in the next election (realistically, NYT editorials should be counted as in-kind Clinton campaign contributions).

Bruce Hayden said... "You suggest that Malkin has an anti-Islamic bias. I would suggest that you are delusional if you don't too right now. Yes, she goes overboard, but it wasn't the Buddists who seized our embassy in Iran, blew up our Marine's barraks in Beruit, attacked other embassies of ours around the world, tried to sink one of our warships, and tried, then succeeded in taking down the WTC towers. Nor, were it the Catholics, or even the Communists. Militant Islam has been attacking us for nearing thirty years now, with increasing frequency, and only since 9/11 have we started hitting back (and that is obviously half hearted)."

1. It wasn't IRAQ either you know...you remember that country? Our close ally in the 80s with the same cast of characters? Can you a least partially see our lack of consistency and our selective prosecution of war?

2 As to Ms. M&M: http://mediamatters.org/columns/200612120001You may not like it but there it is in glorious living color.

3. MM is glib and some think cute but she is, at heart, a liar and in this particular thread the heart of the matter.

In the Right wing's vainglorious attempt at acting as GWB's jockstrap they simply spew forth anything - hoping that it sticks long enough on Rush and Faux et al so to gain currency. She is a voice but not an accurate voice and on the blogosphere that is the real danger. All parties who post have or should have a conditional responsibility to try and get it right...yes this is the same Malkin who somewhere everyday spews about how the liberal press distorts the Iraq news and that is the central theme she has attached herself to (leech comes to mind) but we don't find evidence of the good news in her blogs..what we find is ample evidence of her attacking the "drive by" media because they don't get with her program. and again, that is another core issue:

NO ONE goes to the Malkins, the OReallys, the Hannitys, the Drudges, the gang of felons now commentators for Source News. NO ONE. And why is that? Accuracy? Hmmm novel concept. And this disregard drives them nuts.

When Malkin appears at all in real print it is as a poster child for bullheaded inaccuracy.

They are pulling the party to the left and driving their tone to become nasty, condescending, and exceedingly partisan.

That may be a direction which hurts them with you and with people like you, but why would they think that this hurts them overall? As far as they can tell, it worked. They won the last set of elections. Their approval ratings are higher than Republicans' are. And, on top of it, many moderates and centrists do not hold their candidates accountable for the actions of their party's rabid base.

So what exactly is this paradox? That they have the power to hurt Democrats? When all evidence so far is that the Democrats have not been hurt at all by their exercise of power within their party?

It wasn't IRAQ either you know...you remember that country? Our close ally in the 80s with the same cast of characters? Can you a least partially see our lack of consistency and our selective prosecution of war?

No. We supported Iraq against Iran to keep both at a stalemnate so neither could overrun the Middle East. I guess you also oppose our alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler?

Freder said: Of course I do I wouldn't make such a serious charge if I didn't.

Ah, I get it, Reynolds presents a horrific apprehension and you deduce desire. You think maybe Reynolds used the word genocide on purpose? Because it invokes moral horror? Thanks for the link, anyway. Context is useful.

The vast majority of our home grown terrorists all claim a Christian heritage

The vast majority of our home grown terrorists all claim a toothpaste heritage too. I'm sure there's a connection.

Ah, I get it, Reynolds presents a horrific apprehension and you deduce desire. You think maybe Reynolds used the word genocide on purpose? Because it invokes moral horror?

Umm no. If he wanted to invoke moral horror he would have mentioned the genocide of Hitler. Instead he chose the "genocide" of the American Indian ("the only good Indian is a dead one") and Carthaginians and implies (using Ann's favorite tactic) that such measures were necessary, but regrettable, because those darn savages just wouldn't stop fighting. Then to bolster his case (and justify the killing of women and children) he includes an email from a lawyer who notes that "[t]he new barbarians, like those of old, consist of groups in which every member is a potential warrior."

Andrea Marcotte has published some emails she's received from aggrieved Catholics, at pandagon.net. Apparently all she needs is a good Texas ass-f$cking and to give a good Catholic boy a blow-job. That'll straighten her bigoted self right out.

There's a wealth of foulness out there. Anyone who wants to claim purity for their side is lying.

We can, of course, continue to argue thereby demonstrating our virtuosity in parsing, reading in and out of context, and attributing intent to someone I doubt none of us knows--tell you what: I will email Professor Reynolds and asks him if he approves of genocide. Would we be satisfied with his direct answer?

The irony of using Malkin as a panelist on a segment that inherently casts judgment on whether a blogger's "reporting" is over the top and offensive is staggering. These goofs that Edwards hired should indeed by dropped like a ton of bricks but imagine if Malkin had been hired by a campaign and her collection of work was sifted through for potentially offensive comments.

Doyle--I like the slogan--well done! I was a nuclear weapons employment specialist in my army days (a "prefix 5") and was a nuclear weapons assembly man and Sandia Base in my enlisted days (early 1960s). Fortunately for the possible genocidists among us, neutron flux technology helps avoid the rubble issue: "kill people, not infrastructure," is a possible alternative slogan.

Gerry, you must admit, if you saw that segment, that Powers was actually smearing the Democratic party more broadly than O’Reilly was willing to go. She wasn’t just agreeing with O’Reilly, but taking it further, putting it into the larger context of Dems being hostile to religion, and how damaging that will be for “them” (not “us”).

Doyle, as I did not see the segment, I cannot speak to that. Nor did I claim to be making any specific statement about last night's segment.

What I am saying is that I have seen her before. And I am very comfortable with saying that Amanda Marcotte, Steve Gilliard, Kos, assorted others, and you are significantly more representative of Democrats than she is.

Good luck on getting that. It will be like getting a direct answer out of Ann. These two think it is cute not to have an actual opinion about anything. Just make outrageous statements with enough weasel words and pondering in them that when someone calls you on it you can say:

"I wasn't advocating genocide, I was merely saying that it is sometimes a regrettable and inevitable result of an existential struggle".

Yes, like Marcotte and any person who mailed her anything like she represented.

They deserve each other, and the whole kit and kaboodle regardless of which side of the aisle they reside should be scorned and rejected by anyone with a sense of decency and of what is good in America.

Join me. "Anyone who wrote such things to Marcotte is no better, nor any worse, than she is. They are all symptoms of the same disease. We should feel sorry for them but also reject them completely and without equivocation."

Beth,Oh, I have no doubt. And I have no doubt that Marcotte wasn't joking -- or "satirizing," in her quasi-apology's argot -- when she wrote that "Britney Spears was a famous object of virginity fetishism and well, there you go. You could almost see there being some kind of Fetus People porn out there where someone is giving birth while being f*cked up her ass at the same time to preserve her 2nd virginity that she obtained at the local Southern Baptist church." Or that "South Dakota women might as well die for f*cking." And I have no doubt that Marcotte was serious when she wrote "Homosexual agendaists have inserted this pro-sodomy argument here and are pretending that it’s a creationist argument in order to make Jerry Falwell give in and let himself be f*cked up the ass." And let's not even start on the trash she's talked about Ann that I have no doubt was done purely to wound and silence someone Marcotte disagrees vehemently with (and whose boots, I'll add, Marcotte isn't fit to lick).

Something else I don't have: much sympathy for Marcotte's travails. What's that phrase again? "As you sow, so shall you reap"?

Don’t worry, Ann. Simon’s here to protect you from those mean liberal feminists!

As an aside, can we agree that, no matter what one’s opinion of Marcotte, it’s blithering idiocy to declare the Edwards campaign “finished” because of it? He hired a blogger who once wrote unkind things about the Catholic Church. The right wing outrage machine is clearly getting more fuel-efficient.

If there were the slightest syllable in Glenn's post that suggested he welcomed such an awful outcome, then you might have a point. But I fail to see anything wrong with simply pointing out, from historical examples, that this is how the course is likely to run. Lots of people (including non-entities like myself on up to the widely-read Wretchard who wrote probably the clearest exposition on this matter) support the GWOT precisely because we think it's the only way to not arrive at that final, horrible destination.

"Support[ing] the GWOT" just sounds so cool! Nevermind the specifics, just have my monogrammed jacket made as quickly as possible.

Maybe on the back, there could be like a picture of a dirty Arab trying to flee his home (which probably has nukes underneath it), with like an Apache flying overhead, and on the bottom it'll say something like "Don't Bother Running, You'll Only Die Tired."

You remind me of so many who take an anti-gun-rights position (where fantasies about what pro-gun-rights people think are typically quite lurid.) Here, your attempt to put words in my mouth reveals much, rather, about your own thought life--none of it particularly flattering.

Doyle asked: "As an aside, can we agree that, no matter what one’s opinion of Marcotte, it’s blithering idiocy to declare the Edwards campaign “finished” because of it?"

It sure ain't gonna help. Marcotte's posts are not unkind, they are vitriolic and will put a lot of people off when they are given wider exposure. As others have noted here, his Democratic opponents will use this, potentially to great effect. They already have.

"Finished" is too strong at this point, but he sure has stepped in it.

LOL! When will that be, when they launch a cable news channel devoted entirely to Marcotte's hatred of Catholics?

And Kirk, the mind of the male wingnut is not really as misunderstood as you imagine. Here's Glenn Reynolds, in his own words:

This [Iranians supplying weapons to insurgents] has been obvious for a long time anyway, and I don't understand why the Bush Administration has been so slow to respond. Nor do I think that high-profile diplomacy is an appropriate response. We should be responding quietly, killing radical mullahs and iranian atomic scientists, supporting the simmering insurgencies within Iran, putting the mullahs' expat business interests out of business, etc.

Doyle -- Have you ever thought about why it gives you a thrill to come to a moderate Democrat's website and insult people and call people names and lump everyone you disagree with in the same pile? Does it make you happy? Do you feel that by insulting others you will get them to agree with you?

At some level, it must make you feel good to insult others and to be upset about politics, or you wouldn't come here hurling insults and getting upset.

"When will that be, when they launch a cable news channel devoted entirely to Marcotte's hatred of Catholics?"

Lesson to all of you moderates: this is where the Democrats are heading, because those who are truly representative of the party's core are becoming more confident that the media will never cover who they truly are.

Doyle -- Killing our enemies is a great plan. I urge you to do all that you can to have a prominent plank in the Democratic platform be that we would never kill any Iranians or North Koreans or Syrians or Iraqis anyone else, ever, under any circumstances. It's so barbaric, you could say. We have moved beyond that. We'll have our Special Forces read them their Miranda Rights. We'll put them in jail for life (with the possibility of parole in a few years).

No part of that statement can be proven. The number is exaggerated and it can't be established that "good Christians" participated in any lynchings.

So what is a reasonable number. And who exactly was responsible for the lynchings? It's not like they were carried out in secret or perpetrators were trying to conceal their identities. They were often a community event. Are you telling me these southern towns were devoid of Christians?

To clarify, I don't personally believe Althouse is a conservative. But there are a lot of people who have fixed that label on her seemingly because of her pro-war stance (this isn't necessarily just a left-wing problem either, look at everyone who calls Andrew Sullivan a liberal since he become a war skeptic).

As long as the thread is meandering badly here's a figure on number of documented lynchings from 1884 to 1930: 2805 including 300 white men and women. Source: http://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/ACLAText/USLynch.html.

And Malkin herself. She complains because of ant-Catholic bias, but spews anti-Islam bias all the time, wrote a book defending the internment of the Japanese and is a raging racist.

Freder, nobody gives a rat's ass if she's biased against Muslims, because Muslims aren't a significant voting bloc in this country. Marcotte insulted *Christians*, who make up something like eighty percent of the voting public.

If the Presidential race was being held in Turkey, *then* Malkin would be the equivalent of Marcotte. But it's being held in America, so she isn't.

You can disagree with Glenn Reynold's thoughts about targeted assassination all you like (and please note, before replying to this, that I'm not saying whether or not I like the idea), but you have to admit that the careful removal of a few individuals is about the farthest thing possible from the genocide that Freder is so worked up about, and that I was replying to.

About the only thing that could be even farther away is to not respond to our enemies at all, a position I suspect you and Freder might agree upon.

Anyway, if I might make a feeble nod towards the original subject of Ann's post: good riddance to Edwards. I'm not remotely partisan enough to wish a bad candidate on the Dems out of hopes it will help them lose. Far better to have two fairly middle-of-the-road candidates who will vie for the votes of the great middle, and either of whom would be better for the country than some empty-headed faux populist like Edwards.

Well, if people would stop making the ridiculous claim that only Muslims are terrorists I wouldn't have to keep harping on lynching (and the Klan or the IRA or Bosnia).

The statement "not all anti-American terrorists are Muslim" is true in the same way that the statement "not all rapists are men" is true.

The number of Americans killed by Muslims on 9/11/01 alone is approximately equal to the number of Americans killed by lynching during the entire Jim Crow era. The number of Americans killed by Muslim terrorists in the last 25 years exceeds the death count from *all* forms of domestic terrorism during our nation's entire history.

If you want to make the trite little point that non-Muslim terrorists exist, go right ahead. The fact remains that if you wiped out all the Muslim terrorists there wouldn't be any remaining anti-American terrorism worth speaking of.

Pray tell . . . where do you recommend one go for accurate and unbiased news reporting?"

I read about a dozen papers online each morning..give or take.. I get live news feeds at my office from the wires. I do read the WSJ but not their editorials. I read the Times and Chi Trib and the LA Times and SF examiner for US news but also listen to the bbc world news at my desk. frankly i try and read as much as i can on a daily basis.

there isn't a lot of news on TV as it is mostly schlock entertainment packages. I certainly don't read blogs for news .. that would be crazy.

Alcibiades said... The righty blogosphere and talk radio got rid of Harriet Miers with its disappointment in the quality of the nomination. OTOH, it's proudly unfascistic in comparison to the left blogosphere.

7:28 AM

thats why the most prominent right wing blogs either dont allow comments or ban any dissenters instantly... right.

Did anyone claim that Michelle Malkin has "an objective and unbiased view"? Furthermore, how is it logically possible to have "an objective and unbiased" view? The word view implies what you see, through your own faculties.

Come on, Exalted. Even you are smart enough to realize that there is no such thing.

How come the media is silent about anti-semite Donahue and don't refer to him as the "foul mouthed bigot"?

The good news is that this fat disgusting pig has probably eaten 20 more pounds of Doritos in the last few days, and we're that much closer to the day his arteries clog and we no longer have to listen to what this big fat idiot has to say.

That's not libel Seven. Go on there and pretend your pro gay-rights and start attacking the anti-gay bigots. You'll be gone within a day. It didn't just happen to me. It happend to many of the commenters when I blogged at the time as well.

Perhaps the people who were banned from Eugene Volokh's site were banned for insulting and libelous comments -- like yours above, just to use an example.

Since I don't know who this Donahue guy is, I'm not defending him or criticizing him. Pandagon was originally targeted by opposition research teams for a Democratic candidate. People on the right care not a whit about a has-been like John Edwards or which bile-spewing bloggers he chooses to work for his campaign.

Simon said... Minor nitpick: the problem for Democrats isn't exactly that no Democratic candidates have shown that they know how to "interact with and please or at least appease the raging force that is the left blogosphere," their problem is figuring out how to do so while not becoming utterly unpalatable to actual voters, as both Howard Dean and Ned Lamont have discovered to their cost.

Nice post, worth repeating.

The Democrats have a bigger problem than the Republicans do with their theocrats and bootlicking to the rich. The Democrats now have a hateful, anti-American, anti-Christian grassroots community that absolutely smokes the "alienating" reputation of the McGovernite Left.

You see that in Freder, DTL, Doyle, hdhouse's desperate efforts to attach "moral equivalency" to serve their anti-white, anti-christian, anti-war at any price beliefs.

Americans are as bad as Nazis for genocide and Jap relocation = death camps. Christians are bigoted, homophobic nuts that have persecuted the innocent Muslims for over a thousand years. Americans are worse than Stalin and Pol Pot in our crimes against humanity - for not championing the civil rights of Islamist terrorists.

We are at this amazing place in history mainly because Republicans only took a decade to lapse into the same corrupt cronyism as the Democrats they replaced - and timed that with the worse Republican President in American history other than Harding. (Nixon might be evil, but he was competent and history balances out lapses with accomplishments. )

But I don't think the America haters of the Far Left know how exposed and how far out on a limb they are with their current stances. More Islamoid slaughter will put the eye of the public on their values and loyalties in a heartbeat.

(Two Democratic operatives admitted that if the two Edwards women had slurred blacks, Muslims, or gays with similar language as they slimed Christians in general and Catholics in particular with - they would have been fired by ANY Democrat Presidential candidate in an instant. One added that most of the other candidates would have vetted the women and not hired them in the 1st place due to their hatred of Christians....)

Which loops back into Simon, and the un-named operative Ann quoted. What in God's name are Party leaders thinking if they see the "enthusiasm of the hardcore Left and race pimps and Muslim activists" as worth pushing away and possibly writing off very large voter demographic groups?

Right now, the only thing that unites Democrats is hatred. Hatred of Bush. Hatred of anything Bush wants and desire to sabotage that - even if it hurts the American public or our war effort in damaging "The Bush Hitler".

OK, Bush will be gone in under 2 years, a lame duck almost now.

After Bush, then what? Pelosi Values? A hate-America foreign policy? Singing "Kumbaya" with radical Islamists at a pork and women-free feast and conference?

I see Seven. You're allowed to insult people like Doyle. You're allowed to insult gay people. But I am supposed to be quiet and not be an uppity gay-man.

Fine. Whatever.

Get back to the topic at hand. This story was not started by a Democratic operative. It was started by Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League. He's the one who had the freaking press conference for Christ's sake.

Unless you're telling me that Bill Donahue is a secret agent for Hillary Clinton. Are you that delusional?

And when I make a critical comment about Bill Donahue - and your first reaction is to then criticize me - sorry - but it comes across that you're defending him.

I'd favor it if we actually had any clear deliverables about why we are there. WMD's, getting rid of Saddam, etc. Those all made sense (even if the WMD stuff was a lie). But regardless, those goals are COMPLETE.

You see that in Freder, DTL, Doyle, hdhouse's desperate efforts to attach "moral equivalency" to serve their anti-white, anti-christian, anti-war at any price beliefs.

Talk about libel. Hey Cedarford. I'm white (3/4 at least), Christian, and only anti-Iraq war. Better than being a bigoted, morally superior apologist for barbarism who looks forward to more terrorist attacks just so he can say "I told you so".

Lad -- I poke fun at you because you bring your sexual preference into entirely everything, which has become simultaneously humorous and shrill.

I criticize people like Doyle because I find virtually everything they write wrong and stupid.

Note, however, that my criticisms stick to the topic at hand. I don't call them anti-Semites for no reason at all. (As an aside, you often call me anti-gay. I'm not, but at least it's a criticism related to the topic, which for you is invariably gayness.)

Note also that this story originated with the New York Times. Though I still have no idea who this Donahue guy is, but do you think he has a rapport with reporters from the New York Times?

thats why the most prominent right wing blogs either dont allow comments or ban any dissenters instantly... right.

You're delusional. RedState allows comments, as do seven of the ten top right-wing blogs (eight if you intelligently and correctly don't consider Instapundit right-wing) on the TLB ecosystem. All allow dissent by left-wingers, as a glance at any of the comments demonstrates.

If you really want to seek out "crushing of dissent", try finding a right-winger who's been allowed to post at DailyKos consistently for more than a week or two. :)

"do you really take [Malkin] seriously as a journalist? do you really think she has an objective and unbiased view on the democratic relationship with the blogosphere?"

I'll answer this. I take her as seriously as a journalist as I take many other journalists, ranging from Katie Couric to Matt Lauer to Tim Russert to Chris Matthews. And while I do not think she has an objective and unbiased view on the democratic relationship with the blogosphere, I think she is no different than the others I mentioned in this regard-- they don't either, only for the precise opposite reason, being ideologic co-walkers rather than foes of the Democrats.

Cedarford said..."The Democrats have a bigger problem than the Republicans do with their theocrats and bootlicking to the rich. The Democrats now have a hateful, anti-American, anti-Christian grassroots community that absolutely smokes the "alienating" reputation of the McGovernite Left. You see that in Freder, DTL, Doyle, hdhouse's desperate efforts to attach "moral equivalency" to serve their anti-white, anti-christian, anti-war at any price beliefs."

At 11:11, DTL asserted that he "know[s] at least ten commenters who were banned from Volokh as soon as they mentioned they were gay." Goalpost position one: simple test - mention you're gay at Volokh and be banned.

Then, at 11:14, he advises Seven Machos to visit Volokh, "pretend you['re] pro gay-rights and start attacking the anti-gay bigots," emphasis added, in which case, DTL thinks seven will be "gone within a day." Goalpost position two: two-pronged test - mention you're gay and start "attacking the anti-gay bigots" and be banned.

I wonder if we will discover that, to be charitable to DTL, there is in fact a third prong: mention you're gay and start "attacking the anti-gay bigots" and do so in the sort of rabid and offensive language with which Marcotte, HDhouse et al use as their modus operandi.

I have to be honest, though, and suggest that it's this third part that likely gets people banned at Volokh, and moreover, that it is THE freestanding civility test, not merely one prong of a "must stop teh gays" test.

You said:I read about a dozen papers online each morning..give or take.. I get live news feeds at my office from the wires. I do read the WSJ but not their editorials. I read the Times and Chi Trib and the LA Times and SF examiner for US news but also listen to the bbc world news at my desk. frankly i try and read as much as i can on a daily basis.

Fox News - to hdhouse = faux inaccurate, biased reporting.

So, to restate, hdhouse gets his "accurate" news from the following sources:

I have to be honest, though, and suggest that it's this third part that likely gets people banned at Volokh, and moreover, that it is THE freestanding civility test, not merely one prong of a "must stop teh gays" test

Yeah, DTL's full of shit. I've written in defense of gay rights in the Volokh comment threads many times. Why on Earth would they ban me when most of THEM support gay rights too? As I recall they even parted ways with Clayton Cramer (who was very briefly a commenter there) because of the outrage from gay rights supporters.

The only reason a gay person defending gay rights would get banned from the Volokh Conspiracy is if he acted like DTL does here -- i.e., like a troll interested only in starting flamewars and attacking other people. The VC tries to keep its comments threads polite.